Price Fluctuations Based On Demand

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Catlady

IDEAS are not copyrighted.

In your world, would transmitting books orally be ok? If so, why not transcribe a book and then read from it to another person?

Originally Posted by Anke Wehner

Would you argue that a writer sending out review copies of a dead tree book to get the word out about their new work is being unethical, and if they do that they should send a free book to anyone who asks, ever? Because that's the same principle. With ebooks having no material costs, giving away a large number of free copies to people fishing for publicity is feasible, where giving away a large number of paper books would require rather more up-front investment and involve a greater risk of loss..

In a way yes, the network has the capability of destroying all barriers to knowledge, we are barely taking advantage of its possibilities. The book as was mentioned is the manifestation of an idea. It would be in our best interest to reward the best ideas in order to foster the development of more ideas. I suppose it's similar to karma here on mobileread

To me, saying that you can't have this idea until you pay for it is absurd. On a similar note, is an idea in digital format actually expressed? Or is it so ephemeral that expressment has not yet been achieved?

[DiapDealer]

To me, saying that you can't have this idea until you pay for it is absurd. On a similar note, is an idea in digital format actually expressed? Or is it so ephemeral that expressment has not yet been achieved?

No is requiring you to pay for an idea. In fact, you're free to have the same "idea" as the author... anytime you want. You're only required to pay when you want to read about that idea in that authors words.

Would you pay money for a ticket to hear someone give a speech about the abolishment of copyright?

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Also, if the book is available for free at any time, should it not be available for free at all times?

"You sold the book at a price of zero, meaning you were GIVING THE BOOK AWAY, If someone else decided to share the book that you gave away, would it be right for the artist to stop them from sharing the book?"

I sometimes think you're just a troll. Have you ever gone to a grocery store and had someone hand you a free sample? Did they let you walk away with 50 boxes of the products for free? No? Why would it be any less ethical for an author giving away free copies of a book to create some buzz to later start charging for it? For that matter, do you believe that if a publisher priced a book at $5.99 back in 2006, that they shouldn't be able to sell that same book at $8.99 because that's what they're currently pricing other print books?

What don't you understand about copyright? The copyright holder (or her agent) gets to decide how the copyrighted material gets distributed. If the author doesn't explicitly authorize free redistribution (like with the Baen CDs), they're reserving the right to say that you're not allowed to share it with others, unless it's encrypted with some DRM scheme that allows sharing from within the DRM (like Amazon & Nook ebook lending, or the 6 device limits of Amazon or Adobe, or unlocking Nook books with your name and credit card). Just because you got a free copy somehow doesn't terminate the copyright holder's rights.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

No is requiring you to pay for an idea. In fact, you're free to have the same "idea" as the author... anytime you want. You're only required to pay when you want to read about that idea in that authors words.

Would you pay money for a ticket to hear someone give a speech about the abolishment of copyright?

No I would not, I would walk right through the door and sit in the front row. The information presented in such a speech would be beneficial the more it is heard, so I would be entitled to hear it, as would everyone else who wished to.

As to your first point, I suppose what it comes down to, at least when we are working within the copyright framework, is how do you define when an idea has been transformed from the purity of the idea itself into an expression of the individual?

I don't think we can define this, some might say we don't need to and will just blindly accept the terms of copyrights as is.

From what you are saying, it would seem that all ideas are already "out there" waiting to be expressed?

It might actually be instructive to think about the expression of ideas in prehistoric times, before the advent of writing.

If we had not switched over to a written medium for idea transmission and still relied on the spoken word for knowledge transfer, would utterances be copyrightable? Or more precisely would you believe their utterances to be copyrightable based on the jurisprudence of copyright law? (the jurisprudence of alter-oral history, not actual jurisprudence). I'm going to go ahead and say that you, in this (our actual) history would agree that outlawing speech especially speech outlawed for the sole purpose of wanting to restrict someone else from speaking, well that's just downright nutty.

Now, in this history (our actual again) we can just change the oral transmission of knowledge to a written form and see that outlawing the written word for the sole purpose of wanting to restrict someone else from writing is just as nutty.

By the way, the solution to price fluctuations is to not have a price at all. But I'm sure we already knew that.

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

If you are against agency pricing, which I think most of the readers here are, then you would also be against the ability of an author to raise the price of their book. Or at least against the ability of an author to charge more or less? than any price that they offered their book up to the market initially.

I'm against agency pricing, but I fully support the author or their publisher being able to set the suggested retail price of their ebook. If they price it too high for what I'm willing to pay, I just won't buy it. The reason why I'm against agency pricing is because it doesn't give the bookseller the option to put ebooks on sale when they put the corresponding print book on sale.

As to the ability of an author to charge more or less, have you ever been to a well stocked used book store? Find a mass market paperback book that's been in print for a long time (at least 10-15 years). You'll find that the book will have been sold at several different prices. Why should that be any different for ebooks?

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

By the way, the solution to price fluctuations is to not have a price at all. But I'm sure we already knew that.

Now I know you're just a troll. Mind if I come over to your house and take whatever I want from it?

[Canuck_in_Japan]

Is Giggleton an idiot or a troll? I don't get it. An author changing the price of his book from free to whatever is NOTHING like agency pricing. It's his book he can do whatever he wants with it. If you've already bought the book when it was free then what do you care? If you were to slow to get in on a good deal then tough for you. Ethical or unethical does not enter into the equation.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

I sometimes think you're just a troll.

What don't you understand about copyright? The copyright holder (or her agent) gets to decide how the copyrighted material gets distributed.

1. We are all trolls, living in the troll kingdom, but who is our king?

2. That is exactly what I do not understand about copyright, copyright itself.

It is an archaic manipulation of the market that sorely needs to be abandoned in favor of freedom of distribution. The network has the capability to distribute monies algorithmically, or it will shortly. I prefer the human touch and I think it would behoove us to begin this free distribution model ASAP. Many authors are giving their works away for free ATM, many are not. On the surface this feels like freedom of choice, but if there was no choice we would be completely free. To upload, and read, everything.

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

I'm against agency pricing, but I fully support the author or their publisher being able to set the suggested retail price of their ebook. If they price it too high for what I'm willing to pay, I just won't buy it. The reason why I'm against agency pricing is because it doesn't give the bookseller the option to put ebooks on sale when they put the corresponding print book on sale.

As to the ability of an author to charge more or less, have you ever been to a well stocked used book store? Find a mass market paperback book that's been in print for a long time (at least 10-15 years). You'll find that the book will have been sold at several different prices. Why should that be any different for ebooks?

1. The agency is the author for all intents and purposes, THERE IS NO BOOK STORE THAT SELLS EBOOKS. Only servers that distribute and market books that have been uploaded by the author/agency.

2. ebooks change everything.

[Assassin]

I started reading on pg. 2. Sure glad I didn't start on pg.1 and wade through all this dribble. Bye.

[Hellmark]

This reminds me of the site Amiestreet.com, which before it was bought and shutdown by Amazon, worked on the idea that the more popular something was, the higher the price was.

Things would start out as free downloads, and every so many downloads, the price would slowly increase until it hit a buck a download. You caught onto a song before it was popular, and you saved. It also helped see what was popular and well liked, by simply seeing how much it was selling for. I just checked, and the price scheme was 15 downloads yielded a price of 1¢, 25 yielded 15¢, 50 yielded 50¢, and buys yielded 98¢ (the top price).

[grumpy3b]

Originally Posted by Catlady

IDEAS are not copyrighted.

ummm, that is EXACTLY why copyrights and patents exist...to protect the creators of those ideas. People do own their own intellectual creations.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

This reminds me of the site Amiestreet.com, which before it was bought and shutdown by Amazon, worked on the idea that the more popular something was, the higher the price was.

Things would start out as free downloads, and every so many downloads, the price would slowly increase until it hit a buck a download. You caught onto a song before it was popular, and you saved. It also helped see what was popular and well liked, by simply seeing how much it was selling for. I just checked, and the price scheme was 15 downloads yielded a price of 1¢, 25 yielded 15¢, 50 yielded 50¢, and buys yielded 98¢ (the top price).

Interesting site, do you think Amazon bought the tech but decided against the concept? It would appear that download bots could easily skew the numbers by just downloading everything multiple times.

Also, reversing the practice, pricing everything at 5 dollars and then lowering based on number of downloads would run into the same bot issues, an end to anonymity and better authentication might help though.

Everything is a temporary solution until we see the end of pricing and the dawning of the new age.

As far as the dribble of this thread goes, it is far more interesting to me than most other content currently on the web, and that is all that matters.

[speakingtohe]

Note that if a publisher or author gives away books for free, but requires people to sign up to their website, the book is not free, but traded for sharing whatever information about me they gather in the process

Curious, what information do they ask for that is not already availlable that will give them an advantage?

In my world (Canada) when you sign up for anything, you have to give information. Bank account, credit card, utilities, they all want to know who you are.
In general the information is available from the phone book.

Even when ordering from the states, no one has asked me who I work for, DOB, my salary, Government ID, or anything that is personal.

Just curious as to what information they are asking for that is not public record.

Helen

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by grumpy3b

ummm, that is EXACTLY why copyrights and patents exist...to protect the creators of those ideas. People do own their own intellectual creations.

IDEAS are not copyrighted.

From the U.S. Copyright Office:

What does copyright protect?
Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture. Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section "What Works Are Protected."

How do I protect my idea?
Copyright does not protect ideas, concepts, systems, or methods of doing something. You may express your ideas in writing or drawings and claim copyright in your description, but be aware that copyright will not protect the idea itself as revealed in your written or artistic work.

[grumpy3b]

please read my comment again...I clearly stated copyrights AND patents both combine to protect IDEAS. Yes you can copyright an idea expressed as a creative work.